Evidence is there

After three hearings before the House Committee on Justice, one thing is now very hard to deny: there is real substance behind the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte.

That conclusion does not rest only on the committee’s unanimous 53-0 vote finding probable cause. That vote matters, of course, especially in a political environment where unanimity on anything is rare. But the clearer sign lies elsewhere. It lies in the simple fact that after three rounds of testimony, documents, and official records, the Vice President’s camp still has not produced a straightforward response to the actual evidence that has emerged.

Take the P6.7 billion flagged by the Anti-Money Laundering Council as having flowed into and out of bank accounts owned by the Vice President and her husband. Her camp has not actually denied those transactions. Instead, it has tried to cloud the issue by insisting that these were merely movements of money, not balances. Fine.

But that does not answer the obvious question. If billions of pesos were moving through those accounts, where exactly did they come from?

That is the simple issue at the heart of the matter. And despite all the smoke, mirrors, and performative outrage, there has been no real answer to that very basic question.

The same goes for the other pieces of evidence that have surfaced. Her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, which appear to contain serious misstatements about her assets. SEC records show her as occupying positions in private corporations that the Constitution prohibits her from holding. Even that now NBI-authenticated video in which she threatened the President in no uncertain terms.

One by one, the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of impeachment have been laid on the table. And one by one, they have been met not with direct refutation, but with evasion, obfuscation and sputtering protestations. That lack of a straightforward response speaks volumes.

Because if the evidence were truly weak, if the accusations were really as baseless as her camp insists, then one would expect a simple and direct rebuttal. Not theatrical indignation. Not procedural detours. Not a constant attempt to shift the conversation away from the facts themselves. Just a clear answer.

And yet, after three hearings, no answer has been forthcoming.

This week, the committee is expected to submit its formal report to the House plenary. From there, the next step is straightforward. The House will need 106 votes to send the impeachment to the Senate for trial.

By next week at the latest, we should know whether the Vice President will finally face the full constitutional reckoning that has been delayed for so long.

At this point, the standard should be simple. Just follow the evidence. Set aside the survey numbers, the political calculations, the endless noise from Team Kadiliman and Team Kasamaan. Just focus on the evidence that has emerged over the course of the three committee hearings.

And based on what has emerged so far, the case for accountability is no longer hypothetical. It is not built on rumor, innuendo, or partisan imagination. It is built on public documents, official records, testimonies under oath and a remarkable absence of any convincing rebuttal.

Of course, the Vice President still has every right to defend herself. She still has every opportunity to explain. But those explanations, if they are to matter at all, must be credible, specific and grounded in fact.

If they are not, then the House should do what the evidence requires. And the Senate should do likewise. For once, let the politics follow the proof.